Tangential to climate intervention, or the main reason for it? While I had assumed that Oreskes and Conway's book Merchant of Doubt was the last word on the culpability of the fossil fuel industry in obfuscating the AGW "debate", this recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientist puts to bed any doubt about the role this industry played in sowing uncertainty and derailing efforts to address the AGW problem: http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf
The report is based on 85 internal company and trade association documents that have come to light, containing such revelations as the following: "Identifying, Recruiting, and Training Undercover Scientists Given that scientists are a trusted source of information for policy makers and the public, it is not surprising that the API roadmap memo calls for cultivating and deploying them. Importantly, the API’s communication team realized that scientists seen as spokespeople for the fossil fuel industry would lack credibility. They aimed to “identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach,” and their deception depended on ensuring that these scientists’ financial ties to the fossil fuel industry remained hidden from the public—precisely the arrangement they ultimately made with Dr. Wei-Hock Soon (Dossier #1, p. 6). According to the leaked memo, “These will be indi- viduals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who are already vocal” (Walker 1998). While the funding of the hand-selected scientists was to remain secret, their intended mission was clear: Exxon, Chevron, and the other fossil fuel industry representatives needed these scientists to produce “peer-reviewed papers that undercut the ‘conventional wisdom’ on climate science.” They intended to fund and train the scientists to get their crafted message of uncertainty out to print, radio, and TV journalists (Walker 1998)." "Targeting Teachers and Students Another section of the API roadmap memo outlines a plan to target the National Science Teachers Association. Exxon, Chevron, and the other Global Climate Science Communi- cations Team members recognized that the tide might turn against fossil fuels unless they could reach the next genera- tion. So, under the guise of “present[ing] a credible, balanced picture of climate science,” they opted to push out materials for teachers and their students that directly countered the scientific evidence. As the memo explains, their assumption was that emphasizing “uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect a barrier against further efforts to impose Kyo- to-like measures in the future” (Walker 1998). The leaked memo also outlines a tactic of working through grassroots organizations to promote debate about climate science on campuses and in communities during the period mid-August through October 1998 (Walker 1998). In the years since this memo, many of the activities outlined in the memo have been carried out, as evidenced by the API’s online curriculum for elementary schools that presents non- renewable energy sources such as oil, natural gas, and coal, as “more reliable, affordable, and convenient to use than most renewable energy resources” (see, for example, API 2002). Fossil Fuel Company Involvement: Direct and Indirect Fossil fuel companies contributed to the campaign indirectly, through their membership in and funding of the API, and directly, through the participation of their own employees. Joseph Walker of the API facilitated the process, and the largest fossil fuel companies were implicated in this memo. BP, ConocoPhillips, and Shell were members of the API at the time. Along with ExxonMobil and Chevron, all these firms remain API members today. Exxon and Chevron contributed directly to the development of the plan through their rep- resentatives Randy Randol and Sharon Kneiss, respectively. Exxon, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum also exerted influence through a team member, Steve Milloy, who was the executive director of a front group, called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, funded by these companies. (Milloy had previously aided tobacco firms with their decep- tion campaign (Walker 1998).) BP and Shell, among other fossil fuel companies, indirectly supported this deception campaign via their API memberships. It is noteworthy that these companies began to publicly acknowledge the threat of climate change around this time. Shell, for example, publicly acknowledged in its 1998 corporate sustainability report that rising global temperatures were “possibly due in part to greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity.” The report also noted that “human activities, especially the use of fossil fuels, may be influencing the climate, according to many scientists, including those who make up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (Royal Dutch Shell 1998). Despite such comments, however, fossil fuel companies’ broader campaign to sow confusion continued." "Funding the Campaign The fossil fuel companies knew that a disinformation cam- paign of the scope they intended would not be cheap. The Global Climate Science Communications Team estimated the budget for the program at $5,900,000, which included a national media program and national outreach as well as a data center (Walker 1998). The roadmap identified an array of fossil fuel industry trade associations and front groups, fossil fuel companies, and free-market think tanks to underwrite and execute the plan, including: • The American Petroleum Institute and its members • The Business Round Table and its members • The Edison Electric Institute and its members • The Independent Petroleum Association of America and its members • The National Mining Association and its members • The American Legislative Exchange Council • Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow • The Competitive Enterprise Institute • Frontiers of Freedom • The Marshall Institute" More recently: "In 2009, the API attempted to under- mine the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009— often known as the Waxman-Markey climate bill and a key federal attempt to regulate carbon emissions—by mobilizing front groups to hold staged “energy citizens” rallies in roughly 20 states, rallies designed to suggest that there was significant public opposition to regulating carbon emissions where little actually existed (Gerard 2009; Talley 2009). An API memo leaked to Greenpeace reveals that API urged fossil fuel company executives, including from BP, Chevron, Exxon- Mobil, and Shell, to send their employees to the staged rallies (Center for Media and Democracy 2012; Gerard 2009)." GR - what I find breathtaking here is that a modestly funded but highly focussed and disciplined disinformation campaign was and is being used to effectively neutralize the entire weight and knowledge of the science community in the formulation of effective GHG policy. While built on the similarly successful playbook used in the past by the tobacco industry, this time the fate of an entire planet was and is in play. Also unlike the tobacco issue, where are the lawsuits for present and future climate damages, given these latest revelations? Are these corporate crimes against the planet really going to go unpunished? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
